Today's map is of Africa, circa 1897, (http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2600/2657/2657.htm) showing the borders established by the Berlin Conference of 1885.

Portugal and Britain have one of the oldest alliances in effect, yet the British liked to abuse whenever they had the upper hand, the whole problem was a train route and it's adjacent territories for resource exploration.Pink Map, African Portuguese colonies disputed by British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Map)

Today's map is of Africa, circa 1897, (http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2600/2657/2657.htm) showing the borders established by the Berlin Conference of 1885.

Portugal and Britain have one of the oldest alliances in effect, yet the British liked to abuse whenever they had the upper hand, the whole problem was a train route and it's adjacent territories for resource exploration.Pink Map, African Portuguese colonies disputed by British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Map)

To be fair to the Brits, if they abused the alliance "whenever they had the upper hand," that would be all the time. ;)

Nope, "the old alliance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance) was done in the 1300s, Portugal was a super-power around the 1500s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_empire), England only had the "upper hand" probably around 1700s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) with their maritime expansions after overpassing one of their main enemies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire). I'd say it's tied, around 300 years of upper-hand to each party, wouldn't you say?

Nope, "the old alliance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance) was done in the 1300s, Portugal was a super-power around the 1500s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_empire), England only had the "upper hand" probably around 1700s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) with their maritime expansions after overpassing one of their main enemies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire). I'd say it's tied, around 300 years of upper-hand to each party, wouldn't you say?

Not really at all, I'd say. The treaty looks from my point of view as an attempt by Portugal to co-opt a dangerous rival to its tenuous colonial holdings or, harking back to older times, looking to gain the backing of a potent regional power against its perennial antagonists. I really look in vain for a Portuguese Wellington, or a English John I Master of the Order of Aviz. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation especially with a treaty that is, in all reality, a dozen treaties with numerous manifestations and eras of irrelevant dormancy. There is probably no room for blanket statements. Perhaps we can just settle that both sides thought they had more to gain from being friends than being enemies, regardless of their relative dispositions of power?

Today is April 30th, today's maps is an interactive one of the North African campaign of WWII (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/animations/wwtwo_map_n_africa/index_embed.shtml).

Europe: the only place in the world where "being thrown into horse dung" was too nonsensical to justify millions lost in a 30 year war, so they changed it to "an assassination" the second time around. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Holy_Roman_Empire_1648.svg)